An author's identity shouldn't matter when considering the value of their work. The way a writer identifies them-self shouldn't make their work any less or more than what it actually is. When I'm reading a book, the sexuality, race,and gender of the author are the last things on my mind; actually, unless they're mentioned they don't even cross my mind. I tend to look at the writing itself and then I determine whether it's good or not.
"[T]he persona of a writer [is] not as important as the words that grip, hold, and transform."(10) Hooks is essentially saying that what the writer produces speaks louder volumes than who the writer is. I agree with this statement. However, I'm not saying that who the author is insignificant. I just feel like great writing can come from anyone, regardless of who they are and where they're from. Nonetheless, as soon as authors start to label themselves, their work spaces start to diminish, as only a certain type of writing is expected from them. Hook states then when she first published Bone Black, she "[described] it as a memoir about girlhood that [emphasized] growing up black and southern," yet "editors tried to describe it solely as a memoir about black girlhood"(20). This proves why many authors shy away from giving themselves labels. It sticks them under a certain category whether they want to be in it or not. In conclusion, an author's persona shouldn't be a hindrance when it comes to the significance of their work.
No comments:
Post a Comment